f) . * ' !. 














^ 



,/... V^\** ^°.-^-'*/ \;'^^-y v*^' 















^^-t'3 



,-^" i 









/..^'•,^ 



'-^0^ 1<'^^^M^\ ^oV^ 



: .^-^K ^ 
















:,Vv,\ -.^'Jmk-/^... ,.^\iv:.„\ ./,>^SJk-> 
































• ^..^^ :'M£^ %„./ /^I^\ ^^..** .•• 



^aq^ 







v-^' 



^C^^' 







"^0 










\ \.^^ •' 














%^o^ 



























I ^""^^ 



THE GALPHIN CLAIM. 

SPEECH OF MR. B.^TANLV, OF NORTH mwim, 

In the House of Representatives, Saturday, July G, 1850. 

The report of the Select Committee, made on the letter of the Secretary of War, conccrftine the on v- 
ment of the Galphin claim, being under consideruiion, 

Mr. STANLY said: 

I regret very mucli, Mr.. Speaker, that the House refused to lay on the tabh^ th*' 
report of the Galphin claim. 1 voted in a small minority to dispose of this matter 
by laying it on the table, and I did so \vith the view of "^enabling the House to pro- 
ceed with the public business. 

The appropriation bills, which are indispensable for the support of the Ciovern- 
ment, are not yet acted on. California is still cruelly kept out of tfie Union. Thou- 
sands of laboring men in our country are begging us to protect them from the effects 
of the British tariff of 1846— a tariff which we are informed gives great .>iatisfviction 
to England. Hundreds of honest claimants are supplicating us to act uj)on bills re- 
ported for their relief. All these matters are demanding our attention, while we are 
wasting our time in ridiculous efforts to make, or to prevent making, party capital 

out of the Galphin report. Let the Government stand still — let California wait let 

the British lion complacently smile at the folly of the Americans, who, boasting of 
their freedom, are making themselves as dependent on England as if we were still 
her colonies — let honest creditors suffer — the Galphin claim alone demands all our 
patriotic consideration. If gentlemen on the other side of this Hall, who have 
elected their Speaker and their Clerk, and have control here, will insist in thus 
spending time, it is becoming and proper that we look into other matters of improper 
conduct among their friends. 

But, first, a few words on the Galphin claim. I regret, as every gentleman in 
the country must, that the Secretary of War continued to act as agent ol" this claim 
while he held his place in the Cabinet. It is a matter of taste and of delicacy, about 
which we may differ, as it seems we do differ. But I thijik there is an opinion 
nearly unanimous that it was not becoming in Mr. Crawford to act as an agent of 
this claim while he was in the Cabinet. As a member of a party, his conduct was 
inconsiderate, if not unkind, towards the other members of the Cabinet. But no 
honorable man has imputed anything dishonorable to Mr. Crawford. His conduct 
has been unfortunate and unwise, but his integrity stands fair and unimpeached. 

The Whig party are no more to blame for this act of his than the Democratic 
party is for Mr. Van Buren's bad conduct, or for the indelicacy or impropriety which 
marked the conduct of General Cass, in obtaining sixty-eiglit thousand dollars for 
extra allowances, which Congress never authorized to be paid; nor for his forming a 
company, while in the Cabinet, to speculate in public lands. Neither the conduct 
of Mr. Crawford nor of General Cass has been criminal. Both, in my judgment, 
have been unjustifiable. As Secretary of War, General Cass could have advantages 
which citizens of the country could not have. He had opportunities of enabling his 
company to monopolize the choice tracts of land, to know when they would be in 
market, and then to raise the price and sell them to settlers who were compelled to 
purchase. The Whig party have not endorsed, and never will endorse or sanction, 
Mr. Crawford's conduct. The Democratic party made General Cass their standard- 
bearer, "unanointed and unaneled," with all these sins on his head. When they 
shout ^'Galphin, Galphin," are we not justified in retorting, sixty-eight thousand 
dollars extra allowances — speculations in public lands? I do not intend to assail 
General Cass personally. I only refer to well-known facts. No Whig, w'ho has any 
self-respect, or any regard for public opinion, will violate all the decencies of life by 
utterino- calumnies in relation to this gentleman. And he who imputes dishonesty 
to either Mr. Crawford or Mr. Cass, merits and will receive the contempt of all fair- 
minded men. They will both comfort themselves with the rellection — 



t^ 



" 'Tia but the fate of place, and the rough brake 
That virtue must go through." 

It is only to be regretted that they did not further reflect, that 

"Things done well, 
And with a care, exempt themselves from fear; 
Things done without example, in their issue 
Are to be feared." 

They are to be blamed for a bad example; they forgot that "all things are lawful 
unto me, but all things are not expedient." 
A few words more on the (jalphin claim. 
The act for the relief of Galphin is in the following words: 

" Bt xi encated, Sfc, Sfc, That the Secretary of the Treasury be, and he is hereby, autliorized and 
required to examine and adjust the claim of the late George Galphin, under the treaty made by the Gov- 
ernor of Georgia loith the Creek and Cherokee Indians, in the year 1773, and to pay the amount which may 
befouna due to iVIiHedge Galphin, executor of the said George Galphin, out of any money in the Trea- 
sury not otherwise appropriated. 

"Approved August 14, 1848." 

The wrong in this case, if any wrong has been done, was in passing this act. I 
do not understand it is denied that George Galphin had a claim. It is admitted that, 
under the ireaty referred to, the claim of Galphin was acknowledged to be due. Then 
the act of Congress authorized and "re^zmW the Secretary of the Treasury to adjust 
the claim "under the treaty n:iade by the Governor of Georgia, with the Creek and 
Cherokee Indians, in 1773," and "to pay the amount which may be found due." 
The Secretaries who paid the principal and interest, (Mr. Walker and Mr. Mere- 
dith,) were not to be blamed for obeying an act of Congress. Congress is to blame, 
not the Secretaries, if blame rests anywhere. And let it not be forgotten, Mr. 
Speaker, that Mr. Polk approved this bill; he seems to have been informed of the 
merits of the claim. How this is, can be explained, perhaps, by the honorable 
member from South Carolina, the chairman of the Galphin coinmittee, (Mr. Burt,) 
when he addresses the House, That gentleman now thinks, "that the claim of the 
representatives of George Galphin was not a just demand against the United States." 
The gentleman did not think so in August, 1848; for I have before me a letter, pub- 
lished evidently by authority, from a Georgia paper, which, as part of the history of 
this case, I read to the House. 

[Here is the article which Mr. S. had before him:] 

From the Augusta (Ga.) Chronicle and Sentinel. 
THE GALPHIN CLAIM— MR. BURT. 

You are requested to publish the following letter. The original has been sent to Washington : 

" Washington, 14th August, 1848. 

" Dear Sir : I have the pleasure to say that the bill in which you are interested has just been signed 
by the Speaker of the House, and will be approved by the President. 

" With great respect, your obedient servant, 

"Dr. M. Galphin." " ARMISTEAD BURT. 

Frail memories require remembrances. They are now supplied, because they are refreshing. 

The bill for the relief of Galphin passed on Saturday, the 12th of August. It was approved on the 
14th, (Sunday intervened.) Whose " heifer was ploughed" with in the mean time? The "will" of 
the then President was spoken of as a "lixed fact." His approval was known in advance, or the 
guessing was so close as to have astonished the artistic skill of the East. 

As "a dolphin of the woods and a wild boar of the seas," we subjoin the following resolution: 

"That the claim of the representatives of George Galphin was not a just demand against the United 
States." 

Verily, "the pleasure" of '48 acidified in '50. It had a vinegar twang, and fit only for common 
"pickling." 

In good sooth, the "will" of the President was pinched, in 1848, into an "approved" form. In 1850 
it has been snubbed or smashed. 

Oddsbodkins! Mr. Burt is clever on a congratulation and resolution. Let us be thankful, and 
watch. Omega.] 

Now, sir, it does seem that the gentleinan from South Carolina had informed the 
President, Mr. Polk, of the merits of this bill. 

Mr. Burt (Mr. Stanly yielding the floor for explanation) desired to say a single I 



ri,l'n ?rn M fK P ^^ Was faintly ,„ h,s remembrance that such a letter as the gen- 
tleman fro n North Carol.na had read was hastily written by him, at his desk in this 
Hall, for the purpose ol saving the mad. But he considered it duo to the Presid. n 

!k TV I A T'""' ^'''' ^ ''^'^ '^'^'^ ♦''^^ *^'^'h functionary on the subject, and 

that he had no peculiar means of information. What he wrote was a mere expres- 
sion of opinion. * 

Mr. Stanly. But the -entleman had evidently watched the pro<rress of the bill 
with interest. As Mr. Polk had vetoed the French spoliation bill, he mi-ht with as 
much propriety have vetoed this; for Mr. Polk was Speaker, if I mistake not, m 
lS3b, when the Galphin claim was discussed in Congress. The gentleman from 
South Carolina evidently thought the claim an honest one then, for he raised no ob- 
jection, as he might have done. He seems to have been acquainted with the passa-'p 
ol the bill, and informed his friend— the bill "«;?// be approved by the President;'' lor 
he watched its progress with parental solicitude— watched when the Speaker signed 
the bill, and intormed Dr. M. Galphin that the bill 'hcill be approved by the Presi- 
dent." The inference is irresistible, that the chairman of the Galphin" committee 
had informed Mr. Polk of the merits of the bill; that Mr. Polk thought the claim was 
just, and ought to be paid; and that he personally and olliciallv approved the YuU 

Then, as far as this is a party matter, Mv. Polk, who approved the bill, Mr. 
Walker, who examined and paid the principal, and the chairman of the Select Com- 
mittee, who stands high in the estimation of his party, who is chairman of the 
Committee on Military Affairs — these three distinguished Democrats, are as tho- 
roughly '< Galphinized " as any three Whigs can be, in or out of the Cabinet. Let 
it be particularly observed, that in his testimony bcibre the committee Mr.' Robert 
J. Walker said of the Galphin claim, " the facts being of a peculiar character the 
claim for interest remains an open question." And he also said, " that if he 
entertained serious doubts on a question of law, and demanded the opinion of the 
Attorney General on that question, he would abide by his opinion." The attempt 
is now made to give this matter a party aspect — to blame the Whig party for it. 
The gentleman from Ohio, on the committee, (Mr. Disney,) has exerted his talents 
to the utmost on the question of interest. The gentleman has signally failed in his 
effort to justify Mr. Walker for paying the principal, and to blame Mr. Meredith 
for paying the interest. The gentleman, I take it, is no lawyer; if he ever studied 
law, he did so but a short while, and quit many years since, for he is evidently one 
of those scholars who "hold the eel of science by the tail." His speech has 
shown he was not well informed in legal matters. The law is a jealous mistress, 
and requires undivided attention; and when a lawyer turns politician, he soon finds 
his law knowledge leaves him faster than Bob Acres' courage oozed out at the ends 
of his fingers. I have no respect for the legal opinions of lawyer politicians. This 
same gentleman, in a speech made in the early part of this session, declared that tho' 
he held the Wilmot proviso unconstitutional, yet he should be glad' of an opportunity 
of sending a bill with that proviso in it to the President. To do a great right, he 
would be willing to do a little wrong, was the argument used by the gentleman. 

Now, sir, I want no better reply to this speech and argument of his on the Gal- 
phin business, than the fact, that he thinks he could support the Constitution of the 
United States by sending an unconstitutional measure to the President! Truly, 
Mr. Crawford has little reason to be hurt at the opinion this gentleman may enter- 
tain of the propriety of his conduct. 

But, Mr. Speaker, I wish to call the attention of some of those who have come 
on the stage within two or three years past to a dark page in the history of the 
Democratic party in this country'. Some of the loudest in their denunciation are 
evidently uninformed in the history of Democratic ^'Galphinizing " I invite the 
attention of the youthful Democracy to Reports of Committees of 25th Congress, 
3d session, 1838-'39, Report No. 313. After the whole country had been astound- 
ed by the defalcation of Swartwout, and by the correspondence between JNIr. Wood- 
bury and certain receivers of public money, a committee was appointed, who inves- 
tigated and made the report I have referred to. Let me mention a few cases in 



this report: Mr. William Linn was a receiver of public money at Galena. On the 
23d of June, 1834— mark the dates— Mr. Taney, Secretary of the Treasury, began 
his complaints, that Mr. Linn did not promptly deposit the money in his hands in 
bank. The correspondence continued by Mr. Woodbury, as Secretary of the 
Treasury, in October, 1834, to January 26, 1838, when Mr. Woodbury informed 
him his resignation was accepted by the President; and Mr. Woodbury regretted 
^'so large a balance stands unadjusted in your hands." Balance due from Linn, 
fifty-live thousand nine hundred and sixty -two dollars and six cent.s, ($55,962 06.) 
Is this <^ Galphiuizing," or not? 

Take another case. Rep. No. 313, page 167: W. P. Harris was receiver at 
Columbus, Mississippi. The correspondence with him commences in January, 
1834. In March, 1834, the Secretary makes complaints of Harris's conduct. In 
Aucust, 1835, Mr. Woodbury threatens to dismiss him. In the correspondence is 
a le'tter from John F. H. Claiborne, dated September 15, 1835, in which he speaks 
of Harris as "one of the main pillars of the Democratic cause, and one of the 
earliest and most distinguished friends of the Administration in Mississippi. His 
family and connexions are extremely influential, and all of them are co-operating 
with us iu the arduous .struggle which we are now making." Mr. Harris is repre- 
sented as an honorable man, of " diffused and deserved popularity. " This letter 
was sent by Mr. Harris to the Secretary of the Treasury or the President. 

In Jlugust, 1836 — mark the dates — Mr. Harris writes a letter to the President, 
tendering his resignation, in which he uses the following language, which I read: 

" Iji conclusion, I will take the liberty of recommending to you, for appointment as my successor, 
Colonel Gordon D. Boyd, of Attain county. You are, probably, acquainted witli bis public charac- 
ter, as he has been for several years a prominent member of our State Legislature, and has been 
throughout rtti ardent supporter of your Jldminislralion, and an unyielding advocate of the principles of De- 
mocracy.'''' 

He was also recommended as the " warm personal friend " of W. P. Harris. 

On page 184 of Rep. 313 is this short statement: 

" Balance due from Mr. Harris, one hundred and nine thousand one hundred and seventy-eight 
dollars and eight cents — (1109,178 08.")— See statement. 

Is this " Galphinizing," or only supporting the principles of Democracy? 

Is this all? Not quite. 

In December, 1836, Mr. Woodbury commences his correspondence with "(Jolonel 
Gordon D. Boyd," and continues not quite a year. Remember, Colonel Boyd was 
an "ardent supporter" of the Administration, and "an unyielding advocate of 
the principles of Democracy," the chosen successor of General Harris — his 
"warm personal friend" — of General Harris, who "enjoyed such a diffused and 
deserved popularity," and was c.^e of the " main pillars of the Democratic cause." 
Well, what was the result of Boyd's appointment? In June, 1837, Mr. 
Garesche, appointed by Mr. Woodbury to examine the affairs of the office in Colum- 
bus, reported as follows, and I call the particular attention of the anti-Galphin ora- 
tors to it. Mr. Garesche says to the Secretary of the Treasury. 

" The man seems really penitent, and I am inclined to think, in common with his friends, that 
he is honest, and has been led away from his duty by the example of his predecessor, and a certain 
looseness in the code of morality, which here does not move in so limited a circle as it does with us 
at home. Afiothcr receiver would probably follow in the footsteps of the two. You will not, there- 
fore, be surprised if I recommepd his being retained, in preference to another afifvointment; for he 
has his hands full now, and will not be disposed to speculate any more." — Page IH!) •f Report 313. 

And was Colonel Gordon D. Boyd, the " warm personal friend of General Har- 
ris," the " ardent supporter of the Administration," the " unyielding advocate of 
the principles of Democracy," the "really penitent" Colonel Boyd — was he 
removed? No, sir; on the 7th of October, 1837, Mr. Woodbury acknowledged the 
receipt of his resignation!! On page 189, is this short statement: 

"G. D. Boyd is indebted fifty thousand nine hundred and thirty-seven dollars and twenty-nine 
cents, (1^50,937 29,) as per last statement at the Treasury." 

Is this "Galphinizing," or only sustaining the principles of Democracy? 
Next is the case of Littlebury Hawkins, receiver at Helena; on page 192 of the 
report is this statement — 



" Balance due from Mr. HawkiriK, one liundied thounand dollars, ($100,000,) per last aetilemcnl at 
Treasury." 

Mr. A. G. Mitchell, receiver at Cahaba: on page 196 is this remark — 

"Mr. Mitchell, a late receiver iit. Cahaba, is indebted fit'iy-four thousand nix hundred and twenty- 
six dollars and fifty-fivq cents," ($.S4,62(i 55.) 

The next case of Democratic "Galphinizing," is that of Mr. Childrcis, receiver 
at Helena, Louisiana; on page 199 of the report it is said : 

" Balance due from Paris Childress, twelve thousand four hundred .uid ftpriy-nine dollarH aiid 
seventy-six cents," ($12,449 76.) 

The next case is that of Mr. J. Allen, receiver at Tallahas.see; on page 21H of 
the report it is stated that — 

" Mr. Allen i.s indebted to the Govennnent twenty-six thou.sand six hundred and nnii-ly-one dol- 
lar." and fif'ly-.seven cents." (:ft26,691 57.) 

Then there is a correspondence between Mr. Woodbury and Mr. Spencer, receiver 
at Fort Wayne. I wish to read one or two interesting extracts. 

Mr. Harlan stated, for the information of the gciilleman from North Carolina 
and of the House, that Col. John Spencer was not now, nor at the time to whii'h 
the gentleman refers, a defaulter to the Government; but, on the contrary, was both 
then and now a creditor ol the Government; and a previous Congress and the 
executive officers of the Goverximent have so decided. 

Mr. Stant.y said he was glad to hear that one man had paid what he owed. 

Mr. Dunham explaiaed, that Colonel Spencer was improperl}' set down as a 
defaulter, the Government being in fact in his debt. 

Mr. Stanly. Was not judgment obtained against him by the United State,'-? 

Mr. Dunham. It was improperly obtained, and was afterwards released when 
the facts were made known. 

Mr. Stanly said he should be glad to know how the release was obtained; was 
it because he was "a pillar of Democracy.^" But it was not the amount of the 
defalcation in this case that I was commenting on. It was to the reason given by 
Mr. Hendricks, and Mr. Woodbury's answer, to which I ask attention — especially 
the reasons why Mr. Woodbury ought not to remove him. 

After various complaints from Mr. Woodbury, Mr. William Hendricks writes to him in ludialf of 
Mr. Spencer. In that letter Mr. Hendricks .says: 

" It would, to some extent, produce excitement if he were removed, for he has many warm and 
influential friends, both at Fort Wayne and in Dearborn county, from which he removed to his j)rc- 
sent residence. Better let it 6e." 

In answer to this " better let it be," Mr. Woodbury wrote as short a letter to Mr. Hendricks aB 
General Cass did to the Chicago convention. Hear it : 

"Treasury Department, Septemher 7, 1836. 

" Sir : Your letter of the 31st ultimo is received, and I am happy to inform you that Mr. Spencer's 
explanations have been such that he will probably continue in office. 

I am, very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

"Hon. William Hendricks. LEVI WOODBURY, Sec. of Treosurj/." 

The reason of Mr. Spencer continuing in office will be known, when we hear the fullowing from 
his letter to Mr. Woodbury, dated October 27, 1836: 

" My Democratic friends think that I ought not to leave until after we hold an election fur Presi- 
dent, on the 7th of November, wiiich I have concluded to wait." 

" The Democratic party; the election ; the main pillars of the Democratic cause ; the unyieldmg advo- 
cates of the principles of Democracv;" — these were the rcnsons assigned for keeping men in office who 
had neglected their duties, abused their trusts, and kept the public money for their own j.urpo.ses. 

Let rne say, Mr. Speaker, in parentheses, what I think of General Cass's letters. That he wa.s 
more unfortunate in his Nicholson than in his Chicago letter. We never could iigree in^the South in 
construing the Nicholson letter. General Cass was as clear and definite in his letter as Launcclot, in 
the Merchant of Venice, was, when he gave old Gobbo directions for finding the way to the Jew's house: 

''Gobho. — Master young gentleman, I pray you, which is the way to Master Jew's? 

*'Lmincelol. — Turn up on your right hand, at the next turning, but, at the next turnmg of all, on 
your left; marry, at the very next turning:, turn of no hand, but turndown indirectly to the Jew's house." 

'Twas a hard way to hit — as hard as to hit General Cass's meaning. 

I will not detain the House further by a reference to other cases mentioned in the same report. 

But, sir, it may be said, we heard all this in 1840; the judgment of the country has been passed on 



6 



these transactions. That excuse will not answer. I have, for some weeks past, been making in- 
quiries relative to the officeholders under Mr. Polk. I suppose that when the officeholders in this 
city were encouraged to leave their offices and make speeches against General Taylor; when funds 
were collected out'of the clerks by your public oiRcers; when some of them were engaged in writing 
party essays, that some of the Government moS(»y was probably used for the election by the "pillars 
of the Democratic party." I have judged correctly; and I invite the special attention of all those who 
have been thunderuig anathemas against the Galphin claim to hear my facts. 

I find that various public officers, such as Indian agents, collectors of customs, contractors, navy 
agents, marshals, pension agents, &c., holding office under the last Administration, have retained in 
their hands, or misapplied — to use no harsh words — the public money intrusted to their custody, to an 
amount of nearly one million of dollars ! I have a table before me, and some of the names I will 
give; many of the names I do not wish to bring to public notice, because all of them have not been 
mentioned in the newspapers of the day. 

[Here Mr. Stanly read the names of Denby, Beard, Collins, Beach, and some others referred to in 
this list:] 



Names. 


In what capacity. 


Amount 


Names. 


In what capacity. 


Amount 






claimed. 






claimed. 




Indian agent 


$10,191 69 




Pension Agent 


$5,101 80 


Nathan'l Denby 


Agent at Marseilles, 




Richard Hewitt 


Sub-Indian Agent .. . 


18,142 28 




France 


155,508 48 




Contractor, &c 


1,321 45 




Lieutenant U. S. A. . 


2,923 64 




Navy Agent 


5,894 59 




Collector of Customs, 






Contractor, &c 


345 62 




St. Augustine 


1,082 41 


G. H. Kennerly 


Assist, duartermasfr 


26,397 26 


E. L. Beard . . . 


Contractor, &c 


50,563 25 




Contractor, &c 


8,122 00 


Patrick Collins. 


Surveyor& Inspector, 






Purser U.S. Navy.. 


8,678 16 




Cincinnati 


181,390 40 




Navy Agent 


5.767 88 




Pieceiver Pub. Money; 


4,344 54 


P. M.Wetmore 


Navy Agen.1 


481,580 79 


Wni. B. Scott.. 


Navy Agent 


17,897 37 




Navy Agent 


8,816 93 




Indian Agent 


4,548 84 




Navy and Navy Pen- 




John Beach . . . 


Indian Agent for the 






sion Agent 


8,157 37 




Sac & Fox tribes. .1 


73,831 09 




Purser U. S. Navy. . 


13,489 78 




Navy Agent i 


5,551 08 




Navy Pension Agent 


1,119 50 




Sub-Indian Agent . . . 


8,576 57 




Navy Agent 


1,341 31 




Purser U. S. Navy.. 


3,326 31 




Agent for paying Pen- 






Late Marshal 

Navy Agent 


1,318 05 
4,011 41 




sioners 


6,862 22 




















$826,204 16 



Yes, sir, nearly one million of dollars is the amount of defalcations specified in this list. 

Patrick Collins, of Cincinnati, "Galphinizes" $181,390 40 in the district represented by the gentle- 
man, (Mr. Disney,) whose lucid arguments on interest will confound the Supreme Court. He only 
gave a bond for ten thousand dollars, but as he wa.s "a pillar of Democracy," the gentleman is mute 
as to this defalcation. Why has his denunciation been suppressed.' The truth is, that modern De- 
mocracy seems to think that its "pillars" have a right to take out of the public crib what they plea.se. 

Mr. Disney rose to explain in reference to the case of Collins. The defalcation alleged against Col- 
lins was on account of fees and uncollected bonds, which were all explained, and were handed over by 
Collins to his successor, by whom they are still held. 

Mr. Stanly. In other words, Mr. Collins set up an offset; and does not every defaulter, with 
more or less success, do the same.' There is another statement of thi.s ca-e, however, which does not 
exactly tally with that of the gentleman from Ohio. They all, when they have misapplied the public 
money, make out new accounts. But why has not the gentleman from Ohio called down indignation 
on Collins? Why has he not investigated this case .' 

Mr. Disnkt was understood to say he had been endeavoring to have the Collins account .settled. 

Mr Stanly congratulated the gentleman on his labor of love; from his argument m the Galphm 
case, he was no dol'abt an admirable defender— a friend of Collins. William B. Scolt, navy agent in 
this city, one of the most active officeholders in collecting money out of public otficers here in 1848— 
he only owes the moderate sum of $17,897 37. How much of this money was spent against the elec- 
tion of General Taylor, no Whig can tell. ,. , 

Now, sir, this information I get from reliable sources. And this is not all. It gentlemen will call 
for information, I will show other defalcations. What will the Democracy of the country say to all 
this .' Will they not -say that those who are crying out "Galphin ! Galphin !" are straining at a gnat 
and swallowing a camel? 

One other item of Galphiniz.ing in this city I must mention. The editor of the Union newspaper in 
this city has been among the foremost in denouncing the Cabinet as the " Galphin Cabinet," and 
abusino- the Whi"-s as the " Galphin party." Let us examine his conduct a moment. I hold in my 
hand S^enate report No. 149, made by Mr. Borland on the 8th June, 1850 ; from which it appears that 
the Senate, at the last session, ordered to be printed ten thousand copies of the opinions of the Supreme 
Court, in the cases of Smith vs. Turner, and Norris vs. the City of Boston, making a pamphlet of one 
* Mr. Wetmore, Navy Agent, has paid since he was sued $92,000. 



hundred and eighty-one pages. Mr. Borland is a Democrat, a Senator from Arkansas and a etMiile- 
man of character and Intelligence. ' 

It seems that Mr. Bell, who is " printer to the Senate," has received more than iwolve ihou.sand dol- 
lars for pruning this pamphlet. According to his construction of tlic contract, he cliarged the mod<-ru(e 
sum of thirty-seven thousand two hundred dollars for the ten thousand copies ' Mr Borland m ikns 
various estimates of the cost of tins printing. If charged fairly, he says, under Tiffin (V Streep.r\s 
contract, thirtieth Congress, the total for this printing would amount lo ofily live hundred and twentv- 
two dollars and fifty cents, {522 50 !) Hear Mr. Borland: 

"The committee do not suppose that it could he deemed reaaonahle to exact a iii<'her rate of com- 
pen.sation than the rates established by the joint resolution of 1819 ; for the printers'are williii'^ now 
and have ever proposed, to relinquish their present contracts, and undertake lo execute all ihe^public 
printing at rales less than those of 1819, reduced to tlie extent of twenty per cent." 

Now hear the following, ye thunderers of "Galphin"— pay especial attention to this: 
"Yet the committee have ascertained by calculation, that this document, at iht full rates of 1819 
would not amount to more than two thousand eight hundred and sixty-four dollars and fifty cents' 
($2,864 501) " / • • 

i 

Yet, sir, twelve thousand five hundred dollars were paid for thi.«i pamphlet. Mr. Ritchie, 1 am in- 
formed, was the surety of Mr. Belt for the performance of his contract; he was the arbitrator, who 
settled the price for Belt, and, as I learn from a member of thi.s House, Mr. Ritchie is also the assignee 
of Belt, and holds the contract for his own advantag*: ! Now, sir, is this Galpliinizing, or what is it 
called f Mr. Ritchie, too, is treating the Government, as some of the early .settlers of our country were 
said to have treated the Indians. They claimed the right to take land from the Indians, for they ar- 
gued— 1. The earth is the Lord's, and the fulness thereof; 2. The Lord hath given the earili to his 
saints ; and 3. We are the saints. 

The Democrats have had the spoils so long, they claim the right to have them, and think Wliigs 
ought not even to pay debts, although Congress directs it. Why cannot Mr. Ritchie pour out ^•ome 
of his denunciation against Denby ' 

Mr. Haymond. He is one of the " elite" of the Richmond Democracy. 

Mr. Stanlt. Yes, sir, as my friend from Virginia says, because he is one of the "I'lite" one of the 

aristocratic Democracy of Virginia. Besides the l;"-gi. sums unjustly withheld by these public olTicers— 
by the Denbys, the Wetmores, and the Patrick Collinses, of the'lasl Administraiioii, there are others still. 

I hold in my hand a list — " Balances due from collectors and surveyors of customs, who were ap- 
pointed between the 4th of March, 1845, and 4th March, 1849, and are now out of office;''' and tiiat 
balance is one hundred and thirty-nine thousand three hundred and seventy-eight dolldrs and sixteen 
cents, ($139, S^S 16.) And these, sir, are some of those poor calumniated victims of proscription, 
removed from office by General Taylor ! ^ 

And still more : Here is a list of " balances due by receivers of public moh^s from sales of lands, 
wlio were appointed during the four years ending the 4th March, 1649, and were out of office on the 
1st July, 1850." This balance is twenty-five thousand four hundred and forty-two dollars sixty-one 
cents, (fi25,442 61.) How cruel that such men should be removed from office ! 

There are some instances of abuse, to which I wish now to refer. The last Administration had il3 
favorites, besides the defaulters, and they were well taken care of. Take the case of Mr. A. J. Don- 
elson. In 1846, in April, he was Minister to Berlin. He had an outfii of §9,000 and his salary. In 
1848 he was sent by Mr. Polk Minister lo Germany, or the German Confederation. For this he re- 
ceived another outfit and salary. He was well paid for travelling a few hundred miles, and had nothing 
to do when he got there ; for the German Confederation soon ceased to exist. Mr. Donelson wa.s re- 
called, and the Administration denounced for recalling him. What public service Mr. Donelson ever 
rendered is yet to be known. Here is a statement of the amounts paid him : 

Amount of salaries received by Jl. J Donelson, from lOlh Jlpril, 1846, to llie 1st M)vember, 1849. 

1846, April 10. Outfit for Berlin $9,000 

1848, September 1st. To amount of salary as Minister to Berlin, from April 10, 1846, at §9,000 

per annum 21,500 

1848, September 1st. Expenditures made as Minister to Frankfort, prior to the separatimi of 

the Prussian and German mission 2,250 

1849, November 1st. Outfit to Frankfort 9.000 

1849, November 1st. Infit from Frankfort 2,250 

1849, November 1st. Salary from 1st September to date 10,500 

Total §54,500 

And now let us see how well Mr. Attorney General Clifford was taken care of. He was sent in 
Mexico, to aid in exchanging the ratification of the treaty. For this he received an outfit of §9,000 
and a salary. After his blundering with what he called a protocol, which was no protocol, and by 
his conduct threatening at one time the most serious dangers to the country, he was returned as Min- 
ister to Mexi(jo. And thus the account stands with this " pillar of the Democratic party :" 

The following are the payments which were made to Mr. Nathan Clifibrd, late United States Min- 
ister to Mexico, viz : 

For warrant NO. '2,662,d&ted 18 March, 1848, for §9,000 00 

Do 6,192... do.. 28 Nov do 6,000 00 

Do 6,323.. do.. 4 Dec do 375 31 



8 

For warrant No. 7,351, dated 2 Peb'y. • 1849, for $500 00 

Do 7,965.. do.. 9 March.. do 146 00 

Do 609. .do. i 4 Sept do 1 373 00 

f 16,394 31 
And for balance due to him on settlement 17,854 91 

Whole amount received by Mr. Clifford from 18th March, 1848, to 4th Sept., 1849 $34,249 22 

Is this " Galphinizing," or what is it? And now those who have tolerated all these abuses are de- 
nouncing the Whig party as the " Galphin party." Truly, sir, do these noisy declaimers resemble a 
Democratic overseer I once heard of in the southern country. He had been informed that the squir- 
rels were eating the corn, and iie took six good men from their work to kill the .'squirrels, while he 
kept a pet bear who was allowed to devour corn entirely uncontrolled. I am not aware what public 
service Mr. Clifford has done to entitle him to such reward. He is a gentleman of respectable abili- 
ties, and has been Attorney General ; but I think the only monument to his memory, as Attorney 
General, will be, that after a few of liis speeches the Supreme Court were compelled to adopt a two- 
hour rule. Now, compare his services with those of Reverdy Johnson. We have seen published 
the opinion of the Supreme Court, in the case of Fleming vs. Page, involving the right to levy duties 
on goods imported into certain ports in Mexico during the war. This case had been decided in the 
court below against the United States. By Mr. Johnson's efforts the case was brought to the Su- 
preme Court, and after his masterly argument even the judge, who had been of a different opinion, 
was convinced, the judgment was reversed, and the United Slates saved nearly seven millions of dol- 
lars by this decision. For his services he received no compensation, and would receive none, though 
some of his predecessors for services of a like character had been compensated. In the case of the 
Louisiana land claims, he saved to the Government two millions of dollars. 

And now, sir, this is the gentleman of unsullied private character — of spotless integrity — upon 
whom, as his colleague in the Senate remarked, before he was Attorney General, the mantle of Wirt 
had fallen — this colleague, too, one of the first men in our country — this is the distinguished lawyer 
whose conduct and opinions certain persons are disposed to make themselves ridiculous by censuring. 

Mr. Johnson and Mr. Meredith having passed through life with unstained reputations, (of which 
their country will be proud,) will smile at the impotent malice that attempts to wound them, know- 
ing that all good men will not " mistake the venom of the shaft for the vigor of the bow." 

There is no patriotic gentleman of any parly whose heart will not cordially approve the sentiment 
of Cicero, who, in one of his orations, wlien speaking of the duty of good men to defend the fame of 
the illustrious dead, said, he thought himself " bound to fight for their fame, glory, and memory, with as 
much zeal as for the altars and temples of my country; and if it were necessary to take arms in defence 
of their praise, I should take them as strenuously as they themselves did for the defence of our common 
safety." Surely, thM, it is right to guard the reputation of eminent public men, though still living. 

I regretted very much, Mr. Speaker, to hear the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Carter) depart from 
that propriety which ought to mark our language here, and indulge in harsh epithets toward the 
members of the Cabinet. The gentleman, I am satisfied, spoke under excitement; and in his calm 
moments will regret the violence of his language, because it was unbecoming in him, and unjust 
toward those whom he denounced. But when I saw smiles of approbation in ihe countenances of a 
few on the other side, v/hile the gentleman from Ohio was speaking, I was forcibly reminded of a 
scene drawn by Catlin, during his travels among the Indian tribes. It was, I think, among the Sioux 
Indians a custom, when they were preparing for war, to kill a dog, place his liver on a stake four or 
five feet high, and the barbarous and beastly warriors then formed a ring, and while they danced 
around, each man would bite a piece from the liver. I thought those who enjoyed so violent a .speech 
were men of taste congenial to that of those uncivilized barbarians. 

Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. I repeat, I do not justify the conduct of the Secretary of War in act- 
ing as a claim-agent while he was a member of the Cabinet. It was in bad taste, to say the least. It is 
a bad example; and, apart from other considerations, a sense of public duly forbids me to approve 
his conduct. If this act is justified, auditors, comptrollers, and other ofl^cers, will act as claim-agents, 
and the most enormous abuses be practised ; and m saying this, I feel, as I think Mr. Crawford felt, 
when he was anxious that Mr. Walker should act in this claim before illir.'C. came into the Cabinet. 

I desire the truth should be known by the country, that it may see tliere are as many Democrats as 
Whigs responsible for the payment of the Galphin claim ; that sonre'of those now trying to use the 
payment of this claim for party purposes have justified enormous abuses on the part of the pillars of 
the Democratic party; that some of them have been guilty of taking public money for unjust claims. 
When the truth can be k)iown, the small orators of party may cry " Galphin !" until " Galphin!" the 
hills, "Galphin!" the woods, "Galphin!" the rocks, resound. They may buy starlings, and teach 
them to cry Galphin, nothing but Galphin ! It will be a lesson the birds will soon learn, for the star- 
ling orators have learnt it in a few weeks. But when the honest people of this country know the 
whole truth, when they see that the Democratic " pillars" have plundered the Treasury, and passed 
along unrebuked by their party friends; when they hear the facts 1 have mentioned just now, they 
will tell each noisy drummer of party, " thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye, 
and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." 



W46 



i' f-- 









^^^-^^^^ \^|^*' «>^^\ ^^w^w 



















^^--^ 






^ ,. ^ -. • -^ c'* 










^7 J 















l.^ cv 



